Homosexual Marriage and Adoption

[Pristinegirl]

Not at all. If that is the result of our debate then I apologize.

I'm okay

Perhaps your personal experience has a great influence in your perception that children need to be placed in homes of heterosexual parents even when the studies indicate otherwise. It is your privilege as an NFP to hold subjective value judgments. Also, without seeing the journal I can't determine how valid it is. For all I know, it was written by a Christian organization bent on arguing the gender roles that were dictated by Paul.

Actually I think that you are right on the Christian fact, I did not consider that at all haha. Although I never proposed that children need to be placed in homes of heterosexual parents. Never. I only proposed that both genders are important, with the support that the natural laws only allow men and women to have kids.

Qualitative studies have value, just not in drawing generalizations or determining causation. In order to do those things, you have to rely on quantitative data. Intuition has nothing to do with either. When interpreting data, I have to rely on Ti.

Maybe this is the problem that I have, that my T function is really fucked up...

I'm not going to argue that father involvement or engagement has no impact on children. I'm only arguing what the actual studies of homosexual homes has indicated. That children raised by homosexual couples are just as well adjusted as those raised by heterosexual couples.

NOW satya, your intuitive language I can understand better! =)

You may have a point but it would be to think that a child needs both attributes from each gender or at least familiarize with the real genders. So that they have clear picture of what a male is and a woman. I personally don't think that a woman can be fully like a male, even those who are like millitary officers don't pull that off. But they are pretty close.

I admit that a female can act as a father figure and male can't act as a mother figure in a child's life. A male can take on and be nurturing and forgiving, whereas a female can be disciplining and the gate keeping figure. But wouldn't this distort the childs image if two females were like this. One took one mother figure and the other father figure but still two females? And would this not make them more prone to be homosexual as well?

I suppose that the children are well adjusted because their parents raised them well, as good rolemodels with attributes of a fatherfigure and mother, yes! Although I also think that they learned from their interpersonal environment who may have been of friends with hetero parents.

Also on a sidenote the sampling method does not stand for the whole world. There are always implications due to this. ALSO the participants 'assembled by word of mouth. It was therefore impossible to rule out the possibility that families who participated in the research were especially well adjusted.'

I think we are being drawn towards a common conclusion though of mutual understanding as we straighten missunderstandings out, and realise things on the way! Don't you agree?

 

[IndigoSensor]

One took one mother figure and the other father figure but still two females? And would this not make them more prone to be homosexual as well?

I firmly belive that being homosexual is caused by biolgoical conditions, not by nurtering. I can look back in life and see signs of me being gay. Little things, but they were there. I was born this way. And honestly, why would someone choose a more diffucalt lifestyle?

 

[alcyone]

I firmly belive that being homosexual is caused by biolgoical conditions, not by nurtering. I can look back in life and see signs of me being gay. Little things, but they were there. I was born this way. And honestly, why would someone choose a more diffucalt lifestyle?

*psssst* Because they like doing things the hard way [/whisper]















btw...this was supposed to be funny. just thought I'd make this clear since humor may get lost in this particular thread.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Hahaha I got cha, no but seriously it could be biological but if so; couldnt it be considered a mutant gene as it would be a danger to humanity by means of reproducion if it is a dominant gene?

(I DON'T THINK THIS! I AM WONDERING)

 

[gloomy-optimist]

They really don't know what "causes" homosexuality, but it's generally becoming accepted that the parents will not "cause" it through behavior. There's a bunch of factors that might go into play otherwise; genes, brain size, chemical "abnormalities," college (j/k)...

It's really no one's fault, and it's not some sort of disorder or thing that can be treated. It's perfectly natural, and can be seen in more than just humans.

And I personally think it's horrible when people try to insist otherwise (that wasn't a stab at anyone in this argument, before someone takes it the wrong way; that was a stab at society as a whole)

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Hahaha I got cha, no but seriously it could be biological but if so; couldnt it be considered a mutant gene as it would be a danger to humanity by means of reproducion if it is a dominant gene?

(I DON'T THINK THIS! I AM WONDERING)

I wouldn't consider it a danger. I'd consider it a way of regulation. We're growing like a cancer to the Earth; our reproduction rates are too high, and our population just keeps increasing. We're more of a danger to ourselves, and homosexuality maybe should even be more encouraged to help regulate that growth.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Yes I see that although I am wondering what if in the further future as indigo proposed that it is genetic. And If the gene is dominant and everyone turns homosexual humans become extinct. Melodramatic perhaps but could be presumed if it is a dominant allele.

 

[alcyone]

Hahaha I got cha, no but seriously it could be biological but if so; couldnt it be considered a mutant gene as it would be a danger to humanity by means of reproducion if it is a dominant gene?

(I DON'T THINK THIS! I AM WONDERING)

I don't think it's mutant and I also don't think it's endangering reproduction at all. Being a homosexual doesn't mean that a person CAN'T reproduce. It means they are emotinally and physically attracted to members of the same sex. They prefer relationships with members of the same sex. It doesn't mean they can't have sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex.

As delinated earlier in this thread, there are alternate ways of same sex couples getting a child of their own. Some of those ways even include having the child be genetically related to one of the parents.

In the wild, animals demonstrating homosexual tendencies still mate with females and produce young. In supposedly monogamous bird relationships it's been observed that the female sneaks off occasionally and mates with a bird NOT her mate suggesting that criteria for choosing a mate is based more on parenting capability.

There is a species of bird whose numbers of males are so few that the females pair up with other females in order to raise the young. They aren't breeding with the other females, but they do rely on the other female to take the place of the male (of which there aren't any available).

 

[TK*]

I think it's a mix of things. I know some homosexuals who CHOSE to be homosexuals. Others who are curious and "try" it just because (bicurious) I know others who seem to have been born that way. *shrug* It's a combo of nurture, environment, genes, chemicals (and college! LOL!...kidding)

 

[IndigoSensor]

I think it's a mix of things. I know some homosexuals who CHOSE to be homosexuals. Others who are curious and "try" it just because (bicurious) I know others who seem to have been born that way. *shrug* It's a combo of nurture, environment, genes, chemicals (and college! LOL!...kidding)

I don't understand how someone could choose it. Could you imagine forcing yourself to be attracted to a different sex, and actually truly feel that way? I think not.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Yes but if it only is a preference as you say alcyone, then wouldnt it mean that if it is a gene, a dominant one, then by means if the whole world turns homosexual. Then babies will be produced artifitially via spermbanks or a voluntary of the opposite sex (which would most likely not happen as they are not attracted to one another).

 

[TK*]

I don't understand how someone could choose it. Could you imagine forcing yourself to be attracted to a different sex, and actually truly feel that way? I think not.

Although you may not be able to do that yourself, doesn't mean you can just rule it out entirely. You've never met a bicurious boy before, lol? It doesn't have to be about forcing yourself to do something. Curiosity and experimentation are a big part of sexuality too.

 

[NaeturVindur]

Hahaha I got cha, no but seriously it could be biological but if so; couldnt it be considered a mutant gene as it would be a danger to humanity by means of reproducion if it is a dominant gene?

(I DON'T THINK THIS! I AM WONDERING)

Another perspective on this: Yes, homosexuality (if it is genetic) most certainly is a mutation! so is the growth of hair, or the desire to breath. Every part of our genes is from a mutation somewhere in our ancestry. Mutating is what drives evolution. this aside, I can hardly believe homosexuality, in its current mutation, is dominant (my grandparents had 4 children, 1 is homosexual, this works PERFECTLY with the statistics involved

(yes, I actually paid attention in biology)
Also, I don't think its a danger to humans. If its more likely to prevent reproduction, all ss's would not be able to pass on any of those alleles, thus causing homosexuality to die off.

Personally, I feel that homosexuality is caused by all of the above: genetics, brain size/stucture, brain chemistry, nurturing (this makes a difference if the person with a predisposition to homosexuality would be open to it or not), and college (yes even college [it could undo the nurtuing with all the experimentation]).
​

 

[Pristinegirl]

VINDURNOTT, that is so creative of you to make a punnet square. Hahah *wink wink* ^^
Amazing initiative, it all makes sense and I agree with everything you say. You earned my admiration.

 

[poetrygirl]

I'm not for homosexual marriage simply because I feel it is detrimental to the society. We already have way too many single parent homes. Having only a one sex of a parent is hard on a child. And I know because I grew up with a single mom. Also it's our job to think of the psychological implications of the children being raised by homosexual couples in a society that were many to not accept these things. I don't think homosexuality is biological; I think it could possibly be prenatal but even still I feel it to be a more of a lifestyle choice than anything else.

 

[NaeturVindur]

All that said, I don't actually think homosexuality, on a genetic perspective, is a Dominant-recessive Kind of gene. I would think its more like blood type (A, B, AB, or o), where both alleles present themselves. its just hetero is MUCH more common, and with an AB or o like situation, it would up to all the other factors, and possibly even choice, as to the resultant sexuality.

 

[Pristinegirl]

I'm not for homosexual marriage simply because I feel it is detrimental to the society. We already have way too many single parent homes. Having only a one sex of a parent is hard on a child. And I know because I grew up with a single mom. Also it's our job to think of the psychological implications of the children being raised by homosexual couples in a society that were many to not accept these things.

This is sort of what I said although about homosexual adoption. I was raised with a single mom as well and it does have a psychological impact on the child, when a father is not around right?
Although Satya put forward a study that indicates the opposite, that children of such nature, in homosexual homes, are well adjusted. However it is questionable whether it is empirical data because their sample population is not representable of everyone.

(I'm actually so proud of myself for making such a GREAT summary of me and Satyas argumentation)

 

[NaeturVindur]

I'm not for homosexual marriage simply because I feel it is detrimental to the society. We already have way too many single parent homes. Having only a one sex of a parent is hard on a child. And I know because I grew up with a single mom. Also it's our job to think of the psychological implications of the children being raised by homosexual couples in a society that were many to not accept these things. I don't think homosexuality is biological; I think it could possibly be prenatal but even still I feel it to be a more of a lifestyle choice than anything else.

I can't outright say "no" to the first part, because it IS your opinion, but instead of arguing it all again, I simply refer you to this entire thread. However, to the part about the cause, I can definitively say: No, it is not a choice. I KNOW I did not choose to be gay (I've gone through it, I know what I'm saying), but here I am, a homosexual. It could be any number of other factors, but the only choice I made was to accept who I am (instead of choosing to lie to myself and all potential, future partners when saying "I love you"). That is the only choice there is, not whether I want to be gay, but whether to lie or not. I would think honesty is the more preferable choice.

 

[Pristinegirl]

All that said, I don't actually think homosexuality, on a genetic perspective, is a Dominant-recessive Kind of gene. I would think its more like blood type (A, B, AB, or o), where both alleles present themselves. its just hetero is MUCH more common, and with an AB or o like situation, it would up to all the other factors, and possibly even choice, as to the resultant sexuality.

(I just had a biology test which is why I know the terms haha)
Now, if it was like the blood types it would be a codominant gene and then both hetero and homo would be present - making the person Bisexual. Instead, maybe the homosexual gene resembles a gene of such like in Schizophrenia, which must be triggered (turned on).

 

[alcyone]

Yes but if it only is a preference as you say alcyone, then wouldnt it mean that if it is a gene, a dominant one, then by means if the whole world turns homosexual. Then babies will be produced artifitially via spermbanks or a voluntary of the opposite sex (which would most likely not happen as they are not attracted to one another).

Unless I am wrong (and someone correct me), a gene just doesn't 'become' dominant. It is dominant or it is a recessive.

I am sure genetics is more complicated than this however.

Blonde is a recessive. No matter how many blondes mate and produce children, if a 'brown' hair gene is present the brown hair will win out. My kids are all a mish mash of recessive genes. I am blonde with grey eyes, my husband is brown hair brown eyes. I have two blonde blue eyed children, a red head with brown eyes, and one brown hair brown eyes. Just cause the gene that indicates a sexual preference for the same sex doesn't necessarily mean that a) the person doesn't ever get involved with the opposite sex b)that they won't get involved with the opposite sex c) mean that they HAVE to limit themselves to one preference.

While this is probably not accurate, I've read before that in some Arab cultures, sex with women is for procreation while sex with men is for 'fun'.